If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

ALTER INDEX NOLOGGING:
"Use LOGGING or NOLOGGING to specify whether subsequent
Direct Loader (SQL*Loader) and direct-load INSERT operations
against a nonpartitioned index, a range or hash index partition, or
all partitions or subpartitions of a composite-partitioned index
will be logged (LOGGING) or not logged (NOLOGGING) in the redo
log file."

BUT ...
when I create a table and set it as nologging, subsequent direct-load INSERT
makes reasonable amount of redo.
After truncating the table I create an ordinary index on that table, set it
nologging as well and make direct-load INSERT again. The redo is huge.
It seems that NOLOGGING status applies to tables only despite of manual.

Pando, thanks for reply.
Yes, I understand there must be some redo.
Just see again my original post.
Populating the table with over 20,000 rows makes about 20 K redo. That's great and works as I'd expect.
But the same count of rows inserted into the same table with NOLOGGING index makes about 1,5M redo. That is the problem. It seems that subsequent maintenance of nologgingg index after direct-load insert is fully loged in redo. But (if I understand it) it shouldn't.

Originally posted by pando you mean that if you create an index with nologging then susquent insert shouldnt generate redo with that index...?

No. Subsequent direct-load insert shouldn't.

If I create an index with nologging clause on populated table, then redo is small.
If I create an index with nologging clause on empty table and then populate the table with direct-load insert, then redo is big.